This is the final video, where the COP’s let me go after harassing me for almost two hours. LAPD without probable cause or party claiming invasion of a legal right, tried to steal (impound) my vehicle for the city’s financial ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
Don’t be fooled by the appearances. The “STRAWMAN” argument is an opportunity to use as a forum to expose a vital truth about how men, women and children are legally converted into mere things; HUMAN RESOURCES and raw materials for exploitation to profit a relatively few beneficiaries of a perverted government monopoly.
Take into account (no pun intended) that to visualize the fact that the “curious practice of mixing real names with fictitious names” is not unique to Oregon. As nearly as I can determine, it is practiced by preparers of birth certificates in all states. And it has been going on for at least 16 years – nationwide. Knowing that, you will also realize that the source of the command for such a “curious practice” is at the national, or even the international, level. The practice is systemic.
One other thing that is not made perfectly clear in the following is the fact that the “names” of “artificial persons,” such as corporations and “assumed business names,” are written in all UPPERCASE letters. Since they are fictional or fictitious “things,” they require fictitious names. Don’t confuse a fictitious name with an alias (alias dictus).
“Alias” is when one is known by two or more different names. The term refers only to natural persons, not to artificial “persons.” A natural person may be known by as many names as he chooses, for any lawful reason – or for no reason. For example: so long as he doesn’t use different names with the intention to commit fraud, “James Smith” may lawfully also be known as “John Jones.” An alias, being a name of a natural person, is always capitalized.
To the contrary, “a fictitious name is a counterfeit, feigned or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some particular from his true name, with the implication that it is meant to deceive and mislead” (Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition).
A fictitious name may be assumed by a natural person. But the “name” of an artificial “person” is ALWAYS a fictitious name, and every attorney will acknowledge that the names of artificial “persons” are always fictitious names.
Real names are always capitalized, that is, the first letter of the name is capitalized, and the subsequent letters are written in lowercase. Fictitious names are generally written in all uppercase letters, so they can be distinguished from real names. It’s common for typists to improperly write fictitious names in the same “style” as real names. Sometimes the error is driven by the writer’s ignorance, but often it is motivated by an intent to deceive.
The real name of our friend, John Smith is written (you guessed it!) “John Smith.” “JOHN SMITH” on the other hand, is a fictitious name by virtue of the fact that it doesn’t conform to the rule of grammar which requires capitalization of names. Except for absence of capitalization, it is spelled like our friend’s name, and it sounds the same when spoken orally. But it’s not the name for John Smith. The “name” is fictitious in and of itself, since it is not a real name.
If John Smith were to examine the driver license in his wallet, and the Social Security card he holds, his old military I.D., and every card, check and statement related to his banking, he would discover that none of them are in his name. They all concern fictitious names!
If that doesn’t alarm John – wait until he learns that his children and grandchildren: those natural, beautiful flesh, blood and spirit fruits of his loins – bear fictitious names of THINGS; or “artificial persons!”
Names for natural persons are, of course, always capitalized; that is, the initial letter of the word/name stands distinctly higher than the subsequent letters. Typically, when expressed in type, the initial letter is taken from the uppercase and the subsequent letters are taken from the lowercase. The result is that there can be no ambiguity or confusion as to whether a word is a name/proper noun or a common word or common noun.
Artificial persons (which are actually contrived things that are endowed with a few of the legal powers and privileges of natural persons) are given fictitious names. It is fitting and appropriate that fictitious “persons,” as legal fictions, should be given fictitious names to distinguish them from other fictional entities, and from natural persons.
A person may apply to the CORPORATION DIVISION of the office of the SECRETARY OF STATE, for the establishment and registration of an ASSUMED BUSINESS NAME. The purpose of such a name is, of course, to enter into activity for the intention of making a profit. The “name” that is then established and registered is a fictitious name; not a real name.
Since it does not conform with the rule of grammar which requires capitalization of names of persons, places and things, “GOODBAUDY,” as it appears on the birth certificate discussed herein – obviously intended to be assumed and taken as a family surname – is a fictitious name. Where the fictitious name (GOODBAUDY) is entered into a box reserved for “CHILD-NAME,” and mixed together in that box with the correctly-written given, Christian names for the child, the data in that box is inconsistent .
It would seem to logically follow that, where one-third of the “names” in a “name context” or box is fictitious, all of the “names,” taken together, are fictitious – sort of by the same principle that “one rotten apple will spoil the barrel” or “guilt by association.”
My concern is that, by some legal mechanism unknown to us, which has been executed against our interests without full disclosure to us, and without our knowledge and express or affirmative consent, we may have been converted into things, possibly to be used as merchandise for the profit or benefit of an unknown (to us) owner. If that is the case, it had to happen through our unknowing tacit consent. We would certainly never consider entering into such an arrangement voluntarily
I have examined birth certificates issued over the past 15 years in other state jurisdictions, and have found the form of entry of “names” to be identical with that used on the birth certificate herein under discussion.
I have talked with county registrars, who have advised me that they are required to use that form of entry under direction of the State Registrar. But none could or would provide me with a copy of such a directive. They referred me to the Secretary of State’s office for a copy of the directive.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 333-11-016(2)(h) provides that: Unless otherwise directed by the state Registrar, no certificate shall be complete and correct and acceptable for registration: that contains improper or inconsistent data; -
The Rule clearly provides that birth certificates may contain inconsistent data, such as inconsistent mixing of names with fictitious names, but only WHEN DIRECTED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR.
I have yet to see the directive authorizing the mixing of name-forms on birth certificates. If no such directive has issued from the Secretary of State’s office, than an application for correcting of false information which appears on a birth certificate at the least would seem appropriate.
In his Revelation, Saint John labored to describe a Beast which enslaved Men, and devoured their souls. He exposed the nature and mentality of the Beast’s servants and supporters, of those who – like attorneys – spoke for the Beast; and those who executed its commands, and those lukewarm quislings who gave it their moral support – even at the cost of their children’s lives. But Saint John wrote in highly symbolic terms – farfetched from the normal experiences of men. His intent may have been to save individuals from their baser instincts, and raise them to higher levels of consciousness – or to do the same for humanity as a whole… OR BOTH. The result was a Book, which however influential and powerful, is esoteric. His general revelations are profound, but lack the concrete details we need to understand the schemes the Beast’s servants use to manipulate and exploit innocent men, women and children, to understand sufficiently that we will be able to defend ourselves against the schemes.
In his 13th Chapter, Saint John warned his posterity that another beast would ascend which would execute or nail down the supremacy of the original Beast which, for lack of an effective scheme, had so far been unable to convert all Men into virtually inanimate things, a conversion necessary to directly treat them as merchandise to be milked and traded in a commercial monopoly.
Saint John predicted that the latter, irresistible scheme would persuade all Men to believe (worship) the idea that their very lives depended on their ability to buy and sell; to get a piece of the action of the only game in town! They might sense that the deck was stacked, but the deceptive tricks of the magicians who dealt their hands – being consummate lawyers and symbolaeographers, and dedicated servants of the Beast – were almost impossible to catch. John revealed the governing “trick” – in general terms: In order to buy and sell (and therefore not be killed by poverty), all men must agree to do one of two things. They must not object to being marked or branded as the Beast is marked. The Beast, being fictitious and having no real existence in nature or reality – but existing only in the minds of gullible men – is marked or branded by Nature Itself to be a fictitious thing. Begin a fictitious thing, the beast is marked with a pretend name… a mark that looks like a name, but really isn’t.
No beast can speak for itself, but only through lawyers and agents. The lawyers who administered the schemes of the second Beast, established the “law” which mandates that no natural person may buy or sell, or otherwise seek a profit, in his own Name. They define such activities as business; “Activity entered into with the intent of making a profit” – and require such persons to assume fictitious names for purposes related to business. IT IS THE FICTION which is the mark or brand Saint John warns against! It is the same NUMBER (measure) of what the Beast is; the precise level at which it resides in reality; it’s status in relationship to every thing else – which is FICTIONAL. And in accordance with the Rule of English Grammar it is marked or represented, not by a capitalized name, but by a fictitious “name.” Otherwise “natural persons” who wish to participate in the Beast-System (a worldwide commercial monopoly), and to buy the labor and souls of other men, while selling their own to the highest bidder must receive from the Beast (System), the privilege of using fictitious names.
Only the managers of the scheme are required to know how the system functions. It is they who dictate the policies that keep it running smoothly; who provide for necessary adjustments and refinements to make the system ever more irresistible. Who determine among themselves what the short-term and long-term objectives will be.
It is also incumbent on the pivotal lawyers – especially judges – to learn the deceptive principles which drive the system – so they will be able to suppress valid challenges to its supremacy.
But it is requisite that members of the common herd be imprisoned in abject ignorance, never doubting that they are “free and self-sovereign individuals” who are in full control of their lives and families, and who can speak freely on any subject they choose, and worship whatever God their consciences dictate.
And it is especially essential that the soldiers (policy-enforcement officers), who are required to suppress human activities which tend to undermine the monopoly business venture, be drawn from the least imaginative and sensitive humans. While they are chosen for their love of violence, and must exhibit physical bravery – only intellectual and spiritual cowards are eligible to become military, executorial, persons.
The “Latter Beast” appeared in embryonic form barely 100 years ago. Since its advent, it has matured into the monolithic form we “see” today. Despite dire predictions of “an impending collapse of society as we know it today,” the Beast (System) will not implode into itself. It will not self-destruct. It will continue on its course; growing ever powerful and irresistible. UNLESS IT MEETS AN IMMOVABLE OBJECT THAT IS DETERMINED TO VAPORIZE IT BACK INTO THE NOTHINGNESS FROM WHICH IT CAME!
“The System” can be rocked on its axis if numerous real, live, flesh and blood people will act on relevant FACTS, instead of remaining paralyzed by delusions.
“The System” cannot totally prevail except by its “legal process” of affecting individuals by persuading them to let themselves be directly affected by it. People “volunteer” by assuming that the fictitious names, held out so temptingly to them, require them to assume responsibility for everything done in the fictitious names.
Before the fictitious name scheme became a universal syndrome, individuals could only be directly affected by due process of law which required a real, named person to accuse him of liability for an injury committed by the accused. The injury must have been committed in a particular NAMED venue; i.e. in a particular state and county. The controversy raised under oath by the accuser, would be tried and resolved in a particular NAMED court. The accusatory instrument was required to identify the natural person by his NAME. A typical accusatory instrument set out all the required names in its caption, like this:
In the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Washington County State of Oregon, ) vs. ) Criminal Complaint James Trent Goodbaudy )
Now, under the “Latter Beast System,” ALL NAMES in accusatory instruments are fictitious:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF OREGON ) VS. ) CRIMINAL JAMES TRENT GOODBAUDY ) COMPLAINT
In the final analysis, “government” can only affect you through an administrative or “judicial” accusation – demanding that you “appear” and “answer.” Regardless of how many times in the past you have tacitly (albeit innocently and ignorantly) “acknowledged” a fictitious name, when you insist, your natural being can only be represented by a REAL CAPITALIZED NAME. Therefore, being addressed or even arrested by a fictitious name, which does not mark your natural being, there is nothing for you to answer. You simply say: “The accusation must be abated, it is void. My name is (“John Jones”; capital J, o, h, n; capital J, o, n, e, s ). The accused, ‘JOHN JONES,’ is not an alias; it is a fictitious name – and not mine.”
“Answered” thus, numerous times in fictitious courts and agencies which pollute the Land – the Latter Beast will begin to tremble… as does an evil man when death approaches.
More about Names
I have examined a birth certificate, issued in Montana in 1937, reserved a box for “Full name of child,” with no mention of “first, middle or last names.” The form required entry of both the father’s and mother’s “color or race,” indicating the subject of the certificate was the birth of a natural being.
Another birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1943, upon another birth, reserved a box for “(CHILD) NAME,” and provided spaces for “First,” “Middle” and “Last.” The form required entry of both the father’s and mother’s “COLOR OR RACE!”
Yet another birth certificate issued in Ohio in 1980, reserves a box for: “CHILD-NAME,” with spaces for “First,” “Middle” and “Last.” The form has no box or space for the “color” or “race” of either parent.
And finally, a birth certificate issued in Oregon in 1989, reserves a box for “CHILD-NAME” with spaces for “First,” “Middle” and “Last” – a form identical to that for the Ohio 1980 birth certificate mentioned above; and like it, does not demand the color or race of the parents. There is nothing on “their” birth certificates to verify that the “CHILD-NAME(s)” entered on them, are the names for natural beings; born of parents having natural color or race.
Another “curious” difference between the forms: The forms for the first three BCs, each require entry of “THE MOTHER’S MAIDEN NAME,” and are disinterested in the mother’s current name. But the (1989) form, requires entry of the mother’s (current) name; with a separate box for “MAIDEN SURNAME.” This is the only certificate which mentions “surname.”
The four foregoing examples demonstrate very disturbing changes in birth certificate forms implemented over several decades!
A person’s “Christian (christened) or given name” is his primary name. The so-called “middle name” is superfluous for all legal purposes. A “surname” is generally assumed to be a family name or the “patronymic.” By legal definition, “surname” means “The last name; the name common to all members of a family.” But technically, “surname” means a name “which is excessive, extreme; or over, beyond or above the given (christened) name.”
“Last” (regarding the Last Name entered on three of the foregoing birth certificates) means: “the only remaining part of a collection or sequence; most recent, latest; highest, greatest or utmost; most valid, authoritative or conclusive.”
The case is prima facie! As far as “the states”‘ functionaries are concerned, “your” name stands for a fictional thing intended for use in commerce. And as a fiction created by a “state,” it (and you) are presumed subject to all of the regulations for commerce; including regulation and taxation.
Let “the state” do what it wishes with the fictitious names it creates… until it equates one with YOU. Then, defend your real name, and your honor, and your self by every means at your command – as if your life and soul depends on it!
“LIGHT FUSE AND GET AWAY!” If you light these firecrackers off in most parts of the country, then you are breaking a statutory code (either municipal or civil, sometimes even criminal code) and if you are STANDING UNDER government AUTHORITY ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
Traveling down highway 93 in Nevada towards Idaho I saw this really big dust devil. I took a moving picture of it. Enjoy!
Is a Pure Trust and/or Contract legal? The answer is no; they are not legal, but, not illegal either. That is what is so great about them. The Supreme Court put it this way: “The fact that a ‘Business Trust’ is not regarded as a legal entity distinct from its Trustees, if a true trust…may result in this advantage to the Trust, which a corporation does not possess…”
So the court is saying that the Trust is not legal, and that is a good thing. Let’s explain:
First we have to define “legal.” Most people think they know what that word means but they do not.
The word “legal” is a legal term. If something is legal than there is a law (statute) allowing it. But many things are lawful that are not legal. For instance, is it legal to eat a banana on Wednesdays? No it is not. You see there is no law that says you can eat a banana on Wednesdays, but there is no law that says you cannot; therefore it is lawful to eat a banana on Wednesdays or any other day for that matter. If something is legal it is statutory. Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘Legal:
- Of or relating to law; falling within the province of law
- Established, required, or permitted by law.
- Not contrary to law.
So the trust, like the banana, is not legal, but it is lawful. The Corporation, L.L.C. are legal, meaning there is a statute that you can incorporate, and you must do it the way the state says and they will control it. That is legal.
The Pure Trust is a contract written in trust form. It cannot be illegal because you have a constitutional right to contract and the courts are bound by the constitution to uphold lawful contracts. (Contracts, by the way, are not legal either.)
Police killed Michael Brown, an unarmed man in the street five days ago. Today (8-13-2014) there is martial law in Ferguson, Missouri. Protests racked this St. Louis suburb for a fifth straight night Wednesday as anger flared anew over the ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
Martial law in Ferguson, Missouri. Reporters have been hit by tear gas canisters and other projectile weapons, including “rubber bullets”. Name of the officer who shot Michael Brown still not being released. Police have closed down the city and implemented ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
I filmed the volcano eruption twice tonight from two different angles. I don’t know which one is better but I got both.:-) Plus I like looking at fire. On the strip at the Mirage hotel and casino in Las Vegas, ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
“Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and… control the lives of all American citizens”
This situation has continued absolutely uninterrupted since March 9, 1933. We have been in a state of declared national emergency for MORE than 80 years without knowing it.
According to current laws, as found in 12 USC, Section 95(b) (with the remedy being found in 12 USC, section 95(a)), everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March 4, 1933 is automatically approved:
“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933,
c. 1,Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1]”.
On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. On March 9, 1933, Congress approved, in a special session, his Proclamation 2038 that became known as the Act of March 9, 1933: “Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious national emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application”. This is an example of the Rule of Necessity, a rule of law where necessity knows no law. This rule was invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution.
Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 is the exact same wording as Title 12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under the Rule of Necessity in a declared state of national emergency.
12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (a/k/a The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was “An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes”.
This Act originally excluded citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include “any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
It was here that every American citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration.
According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, we have no personal Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy (all American citizens are all declared enemies) to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby the public good must prevail over private gain.
This also provides for the taking over of enemy private property. Now we know why we no longer receive allodial freehold title to our land… as enemies, our property is no longer ours to have.
The only way we can do business or any type of legal trade is to obtain permission from our government by means of a license.
So who initiated all of these emergency powers?
(Again the abominable Federal Reserve – HR)
On March 3, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York adopted a resolution stating that the withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks had created a national emergency, and “the Federal Reserve Board is
hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday March 4, and Monday, March 6″.
Roosevelt was told to close down the banking system. He did so with Proclamation 2039 under the excuse of alleged unwarranted hoarding of gold by Americans.
Then with Proclamation 2040, he declared on March 9, 1933 the existence of a national bank emergency
whereas “all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed”.
Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the Constitution is automatically abolished.
We are no longer under law. Law has been abolished. We are under a system of War Powers.
Our stocks, bonds, houses, and land can be seized as Americans are considered enemies of the state. What we have is not ours under the War Powers given to the President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military war machine.
Whenever any President proclaims that the national emergency has ended, all War Powers shall cease to be in effect. Congress can do nothing without the President’s signature because Congress granted him
these emergency powers.
For over 80 years, no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power and terminate the original proclamation.
Americans are an enemy subject to tribunal district courts under Martial Law wartime jurisdiction; a Constitutional Dictatorship.
If you are presumed to be the “trustee” over property (which is usually the case in pretty much any court in the US), and you do not carry out your “fiduciary duties” as trustee, you are in breach of trust.
What if you were using “property” of the US Government… and you claimed it as your own? Would that not be a “breach of trust”? You are NOT your STATE ISSUED IDENTIFICATION! YOU are NOT a PERSON! Do not claim that commercial fictional entity as yourself! If you do, you are presumed to be trustee over state property, and as trustee, you are LIABLE for ALL corporate (trust) policy and can be held accountable for it. Remove the presumption that YOU are property of the STATE. Say that you do not wish to act in fraud, and that the LEGAL FICTION that they are looking for belongs to the UNITED STATES. Give it back! And you will be protected (USC 12 95(a)) EVEN IF YOU DON’T DO IT RIGHT! You only have to make a good faith effort!
Abuse of power, or failure (whether or not deliberate, dishonest, or negligent) to carryout the general and fiduciary duties of a trustee. Trustees are personally liable for any loss to the trust caused directly or indirectly by the breach, and must hand over (to the trust) any profit made from the breach (whether or not the trust suffered any loss).
BREACH OF TRUST Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 566
breach of trust.A trustee’s violation of either the trust’s terms or the trustee’s general fiduciary obligations; the violation of a duty that equity imposes on a trustee, whether the violation was willful, fraudulent, negligent, or inadvertent. • A breach of trust subjects the trustee to removal and creates personal liability.
BREACH OF TRUST. Bouvier’s 1856 dictionary
The wilful misappropriation, by a trustee, of a thing which had been lawfully delivered to him in confidence.
2. The distinction between larceny and a breach of trust is to be found chiefly in the terms or way in which the thing was taken originally into the party’s possession; and the rule seems to be, that whenever the article is obtained upon a fair contract, not for a mere temporary purpose, or by one who is in the. employment of the deliverer, then the subsequent misappropriation is to be considered as an act of breach of trust. This rule is, however, subject to many nice distinctions. 15 S. & R. 93, 97. It has been adjudged that when the owner of goods parts with the possession for a particular purpose, and the person who receives them avowedly for that purpose, has at the time a fraudulent intention to make use of the possession as the weans of converting the goods to his own use, and does so convert them, it is larceny; but if the owner partwith the property, although fraudulent means have been used to obtain it, the, act of conversion is not larceny. Id. Alis. Princ. c. 12, p. 354.
3. In the Year Book, 21 H. VII. 14, the distinction is thus stated: Pigot. If I deliver a jewel or money to my servant to keep, and he flees or goes from me with the jewel, is it felony ? Cutler said, Yes : for so long as he is with me or in my house, that which I have delivered to him is adjudged to be in my possession; as my butler, who has my plate in keeping, if he flees with it, it is felony. Same law; if he who keeps my horse goes away with, him: The reason is, they are always in my possession. But if I deliver a horse to my servant to ride to market or the fair and he flee with him, it is no felony; for e comes lawfully to the possession of the horse by delivery. And so it is, if I give him a jewel to carry to London, or to pay one, or to buy a thing, and he flee with it, it is not felony : for it is out of my possession, and he comes lawfully to it. Pigot. It can well be: for the master in these cases has an action against him, viz., Detinue, or Account. See this point fully discussed in Stamf. P. C. lib. 1; Larceny, c. 15, p. 25. Also, 13 Ed. IV. fo. 9; 52 H. III. 7; 21 H. VII. 15.